You guys against the EO, what do you actually want?

First off, I'm British, so I have no horse in this race. I have never in my life voted as I don't want to sponsor any of the bar stewards, but for
full disclosure, if I were to vote, I suppose I would lean right, as I believe in less government and more personal responsiblity. I was pleased with
Brexit. I was pleased with Trump being elected President (certainly as opposed to Hillary).

OK, so that's out of the way.

People over the other side of the pond (and here too!!!?) are besides themselves at this "Muslim ban" EO. This level of anger is very strange,
considering anger usually comes from some form of personal loss or from empathy towards anothers loss. What is being lost here? What is the
alternative? What do you want?

On one hand, you have a President saying that he will impose a temporary ban on immigration from countries that hate you. During this ban, procedures
will be improved for future immigration. How can anyone be opposed to this? Please no "slippery slope" reasoning. Can we look at this on face value
without injecting the feels.

Isn't this likely to make immigration processes BETTER?? Not only for American citizens, as you would like to think you would have more security, but
also for FUTURE IMMIGRANTS, for the same reasons. I highly doubt immigrants want to leave their countries behind them only to come to a country that
has imported the same problems.

Would it not also make integration easier for future immigrants as I suspect levels of distrust towards muslims and immigrants in general would be
lower if vetting processes were improved.

On the other hand... Well, that's the purpose of this thread. What is on the other hand? Things carrying on exactly as they are? MORE immigrants from
the ME with LESS vetting? Fully open borders? All the world holding hands under a rainbow?

I understand people disagreeing with the reasons for the ban, but it is disingenuous to say that reasons don't exist. Surely, doing something
is better than doing nothing.

You asked one question that makes the rest of your post kinda pointless

Can we look at this on face value without injecting the feels.

Sadly those who oppose this and quite a few others things Trump has said or is doing are 100% fueled by feelings and are incapable of rational thought
or discussion it would seem.

So the short answer to your original question "You guys against the EO, what do you actually want?"
They want to see Trump burn and failing that they want the world to burn so they can say "I told you so"

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
People over the other side of the pond (and here too!!!?) are besides themselves at this "Muslim ban" EO. This level of anger is very strange,
considering anger usually comes from some form of personal loss or from empathy towards anothers loss. What is being lost here? What is the
alternative? What do you want?

It really is just generic anger at anything that Trump does. People are so desperate to paint him as the "literally Hitler" that they claimed during
the election, that they will blow up at every opportunity.

The reality is this: Trump has implemented recommendations made by the Obama Administration, against a list of countries identified by the Obama
Administration.

If this was Clinton, they would be praising her for "consistently following through with Obama's policies geared towards keeping America safe", "minor
inconvenience of passengers outweighed by benefit to national security", etc.

Trump is letting them hoist themselves by their own petard, while taking steps to secure the US borders at the same time. Plus, he's seen to be
standing up to bullies - which is largely what the left has become.

The Ctrl-leftists base their reality around hating on all things Trump, so, the net result is that even in the face of common sense, some actively
deny its existence so as to ensure they remain offended and hating on all things Trump.

You know what I find disgustingly hypocritical about all this ?! USA,among others, illegally invaded and destroyed Iraq and Libya and now are closing
doors to people who are fleeing that mess. I'd flood the UK, USA and every "coalition" country that participated in destruction of Iraq and Libya,
with refugees. Only "vetting" would be that refugees can prove that they are citizens either of Iraq or Libya.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
You know what I find disgustingly hypocritical about all this ?! USA,among others, illegally invaded and destroyed Iraq and Libya and now are closing
doors to people who are fleeing that mess. I'd flood the UK, USA and every "coalition" country that participated in destruction of Iraq and Libya,
with refugees. Only "vetting" would be that refugees can prove that they are citizens either of Iraq or Libya.

So you admit you want to see
the world burn. How quaint. It seems trump is simply following the plan layed out by the previous obama admin. Because the bush admin made some
dangerous decisions that most of the American citizens disagreed with pretty vehemently. Trump is simply trying to protect US citizens from the
backlash of previous admins bad decisions. But as OP stated some just want to watch the world burn.

The Ctrl-leftists base their reality around hating on all things Trump, so, the net result is that even in the face of common sense, some actively
deny its existence so as to ensure they remain offended and hating on all things Trump.

This is why you are questioning their logic - good luck with that.

That does seem to be the crux of the matter. Don't get me wrong, Trump makes me nervous, but on the whole, he is a breath of fresh air.

But he could sign an EO ensuring "free kittens to everyone" and someone would be protesting that dogs were being victimised and Trump actually raped
Hitlers hamster so how can we trust him now?

Historically, scientifically, and morally, I cannot support anything that Trump is doing, or has indicated that he wants to do.

History tells me that men who behave as he has, both previous to his election, and since then, are not to be trusted with the affairs of nations, for
they have a tendency to destroy them, rather than to save them.

Scientifically, I cannot support any of his picks for science related departments, including the EPA and others, simply because they refuse to take
on board the attitudes of 97% of scientists when dealing with those matters. They excuse this by saying that scientists have been paid off or co-opted
by a political ideology... Which makes precisely no sense. The only structure with enough clout and finance to pay off or co-opt NINETY SEVEN PERCENT
of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the scientists would not be so opposed
to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against more fossil fuel related nonsense,
and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy.

Morally speaking, Trump is dirt. There are hairs on my arse which have more moral fortitude, and no one who is less moral than I am, should be
permitted to lead anything.

Historically, scientifically, and morally, I cannot support anything that Trump is doing, or has indicated that he wants to do.

History tells me that men who behave as he has, both previous to his election, and since then, are not to be trusted with the affairs of nations, for
they have a tendency to destroy them, rather than to save them.

Scientifically, I cannot support any of his picks for science related departments, including the EPA and others, simply because they refuse to take
on board the attitudes of 97% of scientists when dealing with those matters. They excuse this by saying that scientists have been paid off or co-opted
by a political ideology... Which makes precisely no sense. The only structure with enough clout and finance to pay off or co-opt NINETY SEVEN PERCENT
of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the scientists would not be so opposed
to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against more fossil fuel related nonsense,
and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy.

Morally speaking, Trump is dirt. There are hairs on my arse which have more moral fortitude, and no one who is less moral than I am, should be
permitted to lead anything.

So you hate trump because you feel like he's a bad guy. And you compared him to your ass hair and your ass hair
outperforms him in your opinion. Let me know when you graduate from 3rd grade, i'll send some cupcakes.

I doubt he disagrees with the idea that humans are hurting the enviroment, i believe he simply doesn't like the terrible policies that the left has
tried to implement to curtail the problem.

And I won't. Don't you know that saying about politics and prostitution ?!

I actually don't

But on a slightly more serious note, in your extreme scenario, do you see those responsible for Iraq and Libya getting their commupence? Or is it more
likely that innocent people would be harmed and the ones responsible watching from their ivory tower?? I respond to this sincerely as it isn't all
that far from reality.

We are all being told that we should accept mass immigration from countries our governments have bombed?? Is it any wonder, the same populous who
protested the wars in the first place, knowing it would breed terrorism, are now suspicious of those same people we bombed being allowed into the
country?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Morally speaking, Trump is dirt. There are hairs on my arse which have more moral fortitude, and no one who is less moral than I am, should be
permitted to lead anything.

Trump is as dirty and smelly as the excrement pits of Sheol itself. However, when he brings back jobs to US citizenes, many true Americans will love
him.

Then he puts all the demonstrators into FEMA camps for 're-education'.

Buying peoples souls with money, security plus possible alien disclosure and locking up enemies of his World Order, is very easy for the
antiChrist.

Historically, scientifically, and morally, I cannot support anything that Trump is doing, or has indicated that he wants to do.

History tells me that men who behave as he has, both previous to his election, and since then, are not to be trusted with the affairs of nations, for
they have a tendency to destroy them, rather than to save them.

Scientifically, I cannot support any of his picks for science related departments, including the EPA and others, simply because they refuse to take
on board the attitudes of 97% of scientists when dealing with those matters. They excuse this by saying that scientists have been paid off or co-opted
by a political ideology... Which makes precisely no sense. The only structure with enough clout and finance to pay off or co-opt NINETY SEVEN PERCENT
of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the scientists would not be so opposed
to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against more fossil fuel related nonsense,
and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy.

Morally speaking, Trump is dirt. There are hairs on my arse which have more moral fortitude, and no one who is less moral than I am, should be
permitted to lead anything.

"NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the
scientists would not be so opposed to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against
more fossil fuel related nonsense, and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy. " Except one teeny tiny little detail: As
long as we are only producing a small amount of the oil we could be producing in this country the price remains skyrocketed for the ones we do have
producing it thereby making it perfectly reasonably for oil companies to back this. Not saying this is the case just that your reasoning has some
gaps in it.

Historically, scientifically, and morally, I cannot support anything that Trump is doing, or has indicated that he wants to do.

History tells me that men who behave as he has, both previous to his election, and since then, are not to be trusted with the affairs of nations, for
they have a tendency to destroy them, rather than to save them.

Scientifically, I cannot support any of his picks for science related departments, including the EPA and others, simply because they refuse to take
on board the attitudes of 97% of scientists when dealing with those matters. They excuse this by saying that scientists have been paid off or co-opted
by a political ideology... Which makes precisely no sense. The only structure with enough clout and finance to pay off or co-opt NINETY SEVEN PERCENT
of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the scientists would not be so opposed
to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against more fossil fuel related nonsense,
and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy.

Morally speaking, Trump is dirt. There are hairs on my arse which have more moral fortitude, and no one who is less moral than I am, should be
permitted to lead anything.

So... in the context of the OP, you are saying that you have no opinion on the EO, but don't like Trump, so that will the basis for your opinions on
everything related to Trump??

Try harder mate, I really do want to hear what the opposers to this EO actually WANT to see happen. Not what they DON'T want to see happen.

No, I do not FEEL like he is a bad guy. It is not an emotional matter for me, but one of statistical analysis, historical awareness, an awareness of
the behaviours he has indulged in over the course of his life and what they mean for his personality type, not to mention an awareness of the
implications of his actions and statements since attaining the office of President.

As for your doubt over whether he disagrees with the idea that humans are hurting the environment, if he gave a God damn either way, then he would be
listening to the scientists on the issue, and not appointing science deniers and intellectual non-entities to deal with the EPA, and other science
related fields.

So...one religious answer, saying Trump is the AntiChrist and one clearly emotional answer that doesn't really answer the question at all....Hmm.
Ever notice when you ask them what they really want, they have no clue?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.